8 ms·

The industry, and at large the gaming community is just long past being interested in graphics advancement. AAA games are too complicated and expensive, the wh

The industry, and at large the gaming community is just long past being interested in graphics advancement. AAA games are too complicated and expensive, the whole notion of ever more complex and grandiose experiences doesn't scale. Gamers are fractured along thousands of small niches, even in sense of timeline in terms of 80s, 90s, PS1 era each having a small circle of businesses serving them. The times of console giants, their fiefdoms and the big game studios is coming to an end.

b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
idk, battlefield 6 came out today to very positive reviews and it's absolutely gorgeous.
- ksec 1y ago
  It looks like Frostbite 4.0 is so much better than Unreal 5.x. I cant wait to see comparison.
- jimaek 1y ago
  It's fine, but definitely a downgrade compared to previous titles like Battlefield 1. At moments it looks pretty bad. I'm curious why graphics are stagnating and even getting worse in many cases.
  - b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
    Have you played it? I haven't so I'm just basing my opinion on some YouTube footage I've seen. BF1 is genuinely gorgeous, I can't lie. I think it's the photogrammetry. Do you think the lighting is better in BF1? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that BF6's lighting is more dynamic.
    - jimaek 1y ago
      Yes I played it on a 4090. The game is good but graphics are underwhelming. To my eyes everything looked better in BF1. Maybe it's trickery but it doesn't matter to me. BF6, new COD, and other games all look pretty bad. At least compared to what I would expect from games in 2025. I don't see any real differences from similar games released 10 years ago.
  - ksec 1y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzXLrJTX1M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzXLrJTX1M Battlefield 6 vs Battlefield 1 - Direct Comparison! Attention to Detail & Graphics! PC 4K The progress in 9 years do seems underwhelming.
  - flohofwoe 1y ago
    Exploding production cost is pretty much the only reason (eg we hit diminishing returns in overall game asset quality vs production cost at least a decade ago) plus on the tech side a brain drain from rendering tech to AI tech (or whatever the current best-paid mega-hype is). Also, working in gamedev simply isn't "sexy" anymore since it has been industrialized to essentially assembly line jobs.
    - teamonkey 1y ago
      It’s far from an assembly line job, but it’s unstable, challenging and the pay hasn’t kept up with the rest of the tech sector.
rafaelmn 1y ago
I disagree - current gen console aren't enough to deliver smooth immersive graphics - I played BG3 on PS first and then on PC and there's just no comparing the graphics. Cyberpunk same deal. I'll pay to upgrade to consistent 120/4k and better graphics, and I'll buy the games. And there are AAA that make and will make good money with graphics being front and center.
- Ntrails 1y ago
  >aren't enough to deliver smooth immersive graphics I'm just not sold. Do I really think that BG3 being slightly prettier than, say, Dragon Age / Skyrim / etc made it a more enticing game? Not to me certainly. Was cyberpunk prettier than Witcher 3? Did it need to be for me to play it? My query isn't about whether you can get people to upgrade to play new stuff (always true). But whether they'd still upgrade if they could play on the old console with worse graphics. I also don't think anyone is going to suddenly start playing video games because the graphics improve further.
  - keyringlight 1y ago
    Two aspects I keep thinking about: -How difficult it must be for the art/technical teams at game studios to figure out for all the detail they are capable of putting on screen how much of it will be appreciated by gamers. Essentially making sure that anything they're going to be budgeting significant amount of worker time to creating, gamers aren't going to run right past it and ignore or doesn't contribute meaningfully to 'more than the sum of its parts'. -As much as technology is an enabler for art, alongside the install base issue how well does pursuing new methods fit how their studio is used to working, and is the payoff there if they spend time adapting. A lot of gaming business is about shipping product, and the studios concern is primarily about getting content to gamers than chasing tech as that is what lets their business continue, selling GPUs/consoles is another company's business.
  - rafaelmn 1y ago
    > Do I really think that BG3 being slightly prettier than, say, Dragon Age / Skyrim / etc made it a more enticing game? Absolutely - graphical improvements make the game more immersive for me and I don't want to go back and replay the games I spent hundreds of hours in mid two thousands, like say NVN or Icewind Dale (never played BG 2). It's just not the same feeling now that I've played games with incomparable graphics, polished mechanics and movie level voice acting/mocap cutscenes. I even picked up Mass Effect recently out of nostalgia but gave up fast because it just isn't as captivating as it was back when it was peak graphics.
seanalltogether 1y ago
I'll take the other side of this argument and state that people are interested in higher graphics, BUT they expect to see an equally higher simulation to go along with it. People aren't excited for GTA6 just because of the graphics, but because they know the simulation is going to be better then anything they've seen before. They need to go hand in hand.
- jesse__ 1y ago
  That's totally where all this is going. More horsepower on a GPU doesn't necessarily mean it's all going towards pixels on the screen. People will get creative with it.
- nitwit005 1y ago
  I'm almost certain that we'll see comments that GTA6 feels like a downgrade to big GTA5 fans, as there was a decade of content created for the online version of GTA5.
pornel 1y ago
Advancements in lighting can help all games, not just AAA ones. For example, Tiny Glade and Teardown have ray traced global illumination, which makes them look great with their own art style, rather than expensive hyper-realism. But currently this is technically hard to pull off, and works only within certain constrained environments. Devs are also constrained by the need to support multiple generations of GPUs. That's great from perspective of preventing e-waste and making games more accessible. But technically it means that assets/levels still have to be built with workarounds for rasterized lights and inaccurate shadows. Simply plugging in better lighting makes things look worse by exposing the workarounds, while also lacking polish for the new lighting system. This is why optional ray tracing effects are underwhelming.
goalieca 1y ago
Nintendo dominated last generation with switch. The games were only HD and many at 30fps. Some AAA didn't even get ported to them. But they sold a ton of units and a ton of games and few complained because they were having fun which is what gaming is all about anyways.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
  That is a different audience than people playing on pc/xbox/ps5. Although arguably each console has a different audience, so there is that.
  - theshackleford 1y ago
    > That is a different audience than people playing on pc/xbox/ps5. Many PC users also own a switch. It is in fact one of the most common pairings. There is very little I want get on PC from PS/Xbox so very little point in owning one, I won't get any of the Nintendo titles so keeping one around makes significantly more sense if I want to cover my bases for exclusives.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
      I agree, but bases for exclusives it's one way to differentiate an audience. I literally don't like any game nintendo makes except maybe for Zelda,I wouldn't buy a switch just for that though. I do have a Switch because I have kids though.

b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago

idk, battlefield 6 came out today to very positive reviews and it's absolutely gorgeous.

ksec 1y ago
It looks like Frostbite 4.0 is so much better than Unreal 5.x. I cant wait to see comparison.
jimaek 1y ago
It's fine, but definitely a downgrade compared to previous titles like Battlefield 1. At moments it looks pretty bad. I'm curious why graphics are stagnating and even getting worse in many cases.
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
  Have you played it? I haven't so I'm just basing my opinion on some YouTube footage I've seen. BF1 is genuinely gorgeous, I can't lie. I think it's the photogrammetry. Do you think the lighting is better in BF1? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that BF6's lighting is more dynamic.
  - jimaek 1y ago
    Yes I played it on a 4090. The game is good but graphics are underwhelming. To my eyes everything looked better in BF1. Maybe it's trickery but it doesn't matter to me. BF6, new COD, and other games all look pretty bad. At least compared to what I would expect from games in 2025. I don't see any real differences from similar games released 10 years ago.
- ksec 1y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzXLrJTX1M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzXLrJTX1M Battlefield 6 vs Battlefield 1 - Direct Comparison! Attention to Detail & Graphics! PC 4K The progress in 9 years do seems underwhelming.
- flohofwoe 1y ago
  Exploding production cost is pretty much the only reason (eg we hit diminishing returns in overall game asset quality vs production cost at least a decade ago) plus on the tech side a brain drain from rendering tech to AI tech (or whatever the current best-paid mega-hype is). Also, working in gamedev simply isn't "sexy" anymore since it has been industrialized to essentially assembly line jobs.
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    It’s far from an assembly line job, but it’s unstable, challenging and the pay hasn’t kept up with the rest of the tech sector.

rafaelmn 1y ago

I disagree - current gen console aren't enough to deliver smooth immersive graphics - I played BG3 on PS first and then on PC and there's just no comparing the graphics. Cyberpunk same deal. I'll pay to upgrade to consistent 120/4k and better graphics, and I'll buy the games. And there are AAA that make and will make good money with graphics being front and center.

Ntrails 1y ago
>aren't enough to deliver smooth immersive graphics I'm just not sold. Do I really think that BG3 being slightly prettier than, say, Dragon Age / Skyrim / etc made it a more enticing game? Not to me certainly. Was cyberpunk prettier than Witcher 3? Did it need to be for me to play it? My query isn't about whether you can get people to upgrade to play new stuff (always true). But whether they'd still upgrade if they could play on the old console with worse graphics. I also don't think anyone is going to suddenly start playing video games because the graphics improve further.
- keyringlight 1y ago
  Two aspects I keep thinking about: -How difficult it must be for the art/technical teams at game studios to figure out for all the detail they are capable of putting on screen how much of it will be appreciated by gamers. Essentially making sure that anything they're going to be budgeting significant amount of worker time to creating, gamers aren't going to run right past it and ignore or doesn't contribute meaningfully to 'more than the sum of its parts'. -As much as technology is an enabler for art, alongside the install base issue how well does pursuing new methods fit how their studio is used to working, and is the payoff there if they spend time adapting. A lot of gaming business is about shipping product, and the studios concern is primarily about getting content to gamers than chasing tech as that is what lets their business continue, selling GPUs/consoles is another company's business.
- rafaelmn 1y ago
  > Do I really think that BG3 being slightly prettier than, say, Dragon Age / Skyrim / etc made it a more enticing game? Absolutely - graphical improvements make the game more immersive for me and I don't want to go back and replay the games I spent hundreds of hours in mid two thousands, like say NVN or Icewind Dale (never played BG 2). It's just not the same feeling now that I've played games with incomparable graphics, polished mechanics and movie level voice acting/mocap cutscenes. I even picked up Mass Effect recently out of nostalgia but gave up fast because it just isn't as captivating as it was back when it was peak graphics.

seanalltogether 1y ago

I'll take the other side of this argument and state that people are interested in higher graphics, BUT they expect to see an equally higher simulation to go along with it. People aren't excited for GTA6 just because of the graphics, but because they know the simulation is going to be better then anything they've seen before. They need to go hand in hand.

jesse__ 1y ago
That's totally where all this is going. More horsepower on a GPU doesn't necessarily mean it's all going towards pixels on the screen. People will get creative with it.
nitwit005 1y ago
I'm almost certain that we'll see comments that GTA6 feels like a downgrade to big GTA5 fans, as there was a decade of content created for the online version of GTA5.

pornel 1y ago

Advancements in lighting can help all games, not just AAA ones. For example, Tiny Glade and Teardown have ray traced global illumination, which makes them look great with their own art style, rather than expensive hyper-realism. But currently this is technically hard to pull off, and works only within certain constrained environments. Devs are also constrained by the need to support multiple generations of GPUs. That's great from perspective of preventing e-waste and making games more accessible. But technically it means that assets/levels still have to be built with workarounds for rasterized lights and inaccurate shadows. Simply plugging in better lighting makes things look worse by exposing the workarounds, while also lacking polish for the new lighting system. This is why optional ray tracing effects are underwhelming.

goalieca 1y ago

Nintendo dominated last generation with switch. The games were only HD and many at 30fps. Some AAA didn't even get ported to them. But they sold a ton of units and a ton of games and few complained because they were having fun which is what gaming is all about anyways.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
That is a different audience than people playing on pc/xbox/ps5. Although arguably each console has a different audience, so there is that.
- theshackleford 1y ago
  > That is a different audience than people playing on pc/xbox/ps5. Many PC users also own a switch. It is in fact one of the most common pairings. There is very little I want get on PC from PS/Xbox so very little point in owning one, I won't get any of the Nintendo titles so keeping one around makes significantly more sense if I want to cover my bases for exclusives.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
    I agree, but bases for exclusives it's one way to differentiate an audience. I literally don't like any game nintendo makes except maybe for Zelda,I wouldn't buy a switch just for that though. I do have a Switch because I have kids though.